Do you think Kentucky’s students need to learn about Adolf Hitler, Thomas Edison and the Panama Canal? If so, you won’t be happy with a proposed set of public school social studies standards currently undergoing a public review.
Education standards are the cornerstone of curriculum, instruction and tests. They should provide detailed descriptions of what students are supposed to know and be able to do.
But there are massive problems with the proposal.
For example, the War of 1812, in which, according to the Kentucky National Guard, Kentuckians accounted for 64% of all Americans killed, is never mentioned. Also ignored are the Mexican-American War and a number of recent wars, including Middle East conflicts.
The proposed standards never mention Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. president during World War I, or Gen. John J. Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Forces during that war. But Mary Willie Arvin, a nurse honored for her service in World War I, is named. Leaders get ignored while a nurse gets honored? Really?
Consider this: Major figures from World War II, including Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill, are all absent without leave.
Don’t all Kentucky children deserve to know about inventors like Edison and Alexander Graham Bell? The draft disagrees. The telephone, phonograph, and light bulb apparently never existed. They get the same treatment as the Panama Canal.
Of particular concern today amid notable upheavals affecting a major political party, the draft’s lone mention of “socialism” concerns the National Socialism movement in Nazi Germany (the term Nazi is also missing). The proposed standards refer to the “fall of Communism,” which would certainly surprise people in places like China and Cuba. Should Kentucky’s children be left poorly informed about the effects of such philosophies that are still hurting people around the world?
The format of the proposed standards is highly problematic. Effective standards must be clear and detailed about the minimum all Kentucky students are expected to know and be able to do. Instead, the draft is loaded with confusing “Disciplinary Clarifications.” These clarifications are only “possible suggestions,” not mandatory requirements, and they are liberally salted with the weak, non-directive term “may.”
Consider first-grade standard 1.C.KGO.1, “Identify Kentucky leaders, and explain their roles and responsibilities.” The Disciplinary Clarification reads: “Kentucky leaders which may include, but are not limited to, governor, lieutenant governor, legislator or judge may be identified.” Do the drafters really think state leaders only “may” include the governor? Really?
Some legally required content is poorly handled. The draft’s opening section correctly says Kentucky law requires instruction on the Holocaust and other genocides. However, “Holocaust” appears nowhere else in the document, so no grade level is assigned to teach it. Teachers, and test writers, are left to guess when the Holocaust will be covered.
There are more legal issues. State law says anything not in the state board’s approved standards cannot appear on the state’s assessments. This is because the standards provide “fair notice” about what is fair game for state testing. Since Arvin is named, a question about her is clearly allowed. Questions about Woodrow Wilson or Hitler, however, arguably are not.
So, what can you do? The regulation governing the proposed changes, 704 KAR 8:060, is in a public comment period through the end of October. If enough criticism is submitted, the state school board could send the standards back for more work. Comments should be sent to:
Todd G. Allen, General Counsel, Kentucky Department of Education, 300 Sower Boulevard, 5th Floor, Frankfort, KY 40601; phone 502-564-4474; fax 502-564-9321; email regcomments@education.ky.gov.
If the state board doesn’t listen, there also will be a legislative review. Without major changes, legislators should send the package back for more work.
Legislators also shouldn’t fall for promises to make fixes after adoption. That would prevent teachers and the general public from commenting on such fixes.
Hopefully, thoughtful Kentuckians will take some time to look at what the state’s kids will, and will not, be learning and chime in. Our students deserve no less.
Richard G. Innes is an education policy analyst at the Bluegrass Institute. Read his full comments to the Kentucky Department of Education here.